Tinubu kicks as the court accepts INEC’s exhibit containing his bio-data.
INEC Chairman, FCT produces the BVAS report for 36 states.
Following a summons, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, yesterday produced a document containing President Bola Tinubu’s age before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja.
The Form EC9 document was an affidavit of personal particulars that President Tinubu submitted to the INEC in support of his qualification to run in the 2023 presidential election.
Read Also Delta LG Speaks on closure of market over monarch’s passage rites
Former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, candidate Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who is challenging the outcome of the presidential election held on February 25, persuaded the court in an application filed through his legal team to summon the INEC boss to produce the document containing Tinubu’s bio-data, among other exhibits he requested.
Read Also Russia Ukraine War Live update for today Friday June 16, 2023
In a joint petition with his party, Atiku claimed that Tinubu had “demonstrated inconsistency as to his actual date of birth, secondary schools he attended (Government College Ibadan); his state of origin, gender, actual name; certificates evidencing universities attended (Chicago State University).”
“The purported degree Certificate of the 2nd Respondent obtained at Chicago State University belonged to a female (F) described as “F” in the Certificate bearing the name Bola Tinubu, not to him.”
Pay attention to Olu Verheijen Biography, Net Worth, Education, Husband, and Appointment as Special Adviser
“In addition to his Nigerian citizenship, the 2nd Respondent did not disclose to the 1st Respondent (INEC) his voluntary acquisition of Republic of Guinea citizenship with Guinean Passport No. D00001551. The second respondent is hereby summoned to produce original copies of his two passports.”
In response to the petitioners’ application, the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani issued a subpoena on May 26 ordering the INEC chairman to produce 11 sets of exhibits.
Also Read Naira to Dollar Exchange Rate Crashes Badly Amidst Tinubu’s financial Policies
As a result, even though Prof. Yakubu was not physically present in court yesterday, he sent a senior official of the commission to tender four of the requested exhibits.
Mrs. Moronkeji Tairu, his representative, told the court that she works at the INEC headquarters in Abuja as a Deputy Director, Certification & Complaints, Legal Drafting and Clearance Department.
Dollar to Naira black market exchange rate today June 16, 2023 | Aboki Exchange rate
Mrs. Tairu, who took the witness stand, told the court that she brought Forms EC8D series, which were presidential election results from the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja.
The second exhibit she presented to the court was a Form EC8D(A), which was INEC’s final declaration of the presidential election results.
Prof. Yakubu’s representative also presented reports of extracts from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, machines in Rivers State, as well as certified copies of BVAS accreditation data relating to the federation’s 36 states and the FCT.
How Detained CBN Governor Emefiele Implicates Suspended EFCC Chairman Bawa in Naira Redesign Scam
Finally, the witness presented a certified true copy of the Form EC9 that President Tinubu submitted to INEC, which was admitted as Exhibit PAJ 40.
Mrs. Tairu told the court that because some of the requested documents were large in size, the commission obtained 10 copies from each state and packaged the remaining information on flash drives, which she also handed over to the panel.
Meanwhile, President Tinubu’s legal team, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued against the admissibility of all documents in evidence.
The All Progressives Congress, APC, raised an equal objection to all of the exhibits presented by the INEC chairman’s representative, led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN.
The Respondents stated that they would provide reasons for their objections in their final written address.
INEC, through its lead counsel, Mr. Abubakar Mahmood, SAN, stated that while it was not opposed to the admissibility of the documents, which it described as irrelevant to the case before the court, the petitioners failed to pay the required fees.
In response, the petitioners’ lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, told the court that, contrary to INEC’s position, his clients paid N6.7 million for the certification of all the documents they requested from INEC.
Earlier in the proceedings, as the 21st witness in the case, a statistician, Mr. Samuel Oduntan, told the court that based on his analysis, Atiku and the PDP won the presidential election.
The witness testified in court that he examined and analysed electoral materials used in the election, particularly Forms EC8A, which contained polling unit results from the federation’s 26 states.
In response to cross-examination, the statistician stated that he performed quality checks before reaching conclusions on data presented in reports tendered in evidence before the court.
The witness stated during cross examination by President Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, that he had previously analysed electoral materials in many election-related disputes.
He did, however, admit that no photographic evidence of the electoral materials he inspected at INEC’s headquarters at the request of Atiku and the PDP was attached to his court report.
According to the witness, the deduction of votes credited to the three major political parties in polling units where the election was marred by irregularities was part of his analysis.
He told the court that he was not equally satisfied with the results of Adamawa and Kano states, which were won by the PDP and the New Nigeria Peoples Party, respectively, and that he had also called for the deduction of “irregularities votes” in the states won by the Labour Party in his report.
In response to questions from the APC’s lawyer, the witness, Prince Fagbemi, SAN, stated, “I have been following INEC’s activities since 1999.” I am aware that the INEC chairman stated in the run-up to the 2023 general elections that election results would be electronically transmitted and in real time.
“However, I did not hear him say at any point before the election that the commission could no longer transmit election results electronically due to security concerns and a cash crunch.”
When asked if he extracted information from the BVAS machines before packaging his report, the witness stated, “As the BVAS machines had already been reconfigured for another round of elections at the time of preparing the report.” As a result, they were unavailable for me to elicit information from them.
“I am aware that the established rule was that the BVAS machines would be used for voter accreditation,” he added.
He told the court that based on the results of 26 states analysed by his team of six members, Atiku received a majority vote in 12 of them.
“Because I was the team leader, I was the only one who signed the report,” he added.
However, the APC drew the court’s attention to the fact that, on one page of his report, the witness claimed he analysed results in 28 states, but on another page, he claimed the analysis was with respect to all 36 states of the federation.
The panel led by Justice Tsammani adjourned further hearing on the case until today.
